WAPA v. Jackson Enterprises, ST-1982-CV-292 (V.I. 1982) [unpublished]
IN THE TERRITORIAL COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN =0= VIRGIN ISLANDS WATER AND POWER AUTHORITY, Plaintiff Vs. CIVIL NO. 292/1982 JACKSON ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant VICTOR G. SCHNEIDER, Esq. V. I. Water & Power Authority P. O. Box 1450 St. Thomas, Virgin Islands (Attorney for Plaintiff) Jackson Enterprises, Inc. Edith L. Bornn, Resident Agent No. 8 Norre Gade St. Thomas, Virgin Islands (For Defendant) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (October wd , 1982) FEUERZEIG, J. Plaintiff was ordered on July 13, 1982 "to show cause by what authority this court can find that service on Urline Lettsome was proper service on the defendant." Plaintiff filed nothing in response. As a result, on September 10, 1982 plaintiff was ordered to comply with the order or face dismissal without prejudice. Plaintiff responded on September 24, 1982 indicating Ms. Lettsome is the receptionist for the resident agent of defendant Jackson Enterprises, Inc. With no further adieu, it is concluded: “Accordingly, proper service was made . …
Download the original document · Plain text (TXT) · Browse the archive · How this archive works
Original source: https://superior.vicourts.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_12810747/File/Opinions/Archive/WAPA%20v.%20Jackson%20Enterps%20(HLF).pdf
SHA-256 db51f6ea111ed9b2d1ce88b576a46b512fbd2b5619b83f4daae7a54c71f4afb6
Re-using this document
edicts of government — judicial opinions are not copyrightable by anyone. NOT 17 USC 105 (territorial court, not federal) and NOT 'rights unstated'.
Our description, tagging, arrangement, extracted text and machine transcripts are released under CC0 1.0. We assert nothing about the document itself.
Archive identifier LF-db51f6ea111e
Document text
IN THE TERRITORIAL COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN =0= VIRGIN ISLANDS WATER AND POWER AUTHORITY, Plaintiff Vs. CIVIL NO. 292/1982 JACKSON ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant VICTOR G. SCHNEIDER, Esq. V. I. Water & Power Authority P. O. Box 1450 St. Thomas, Virgin Islands (Attorney for Plaintiff) Jackson Enterprises, Inc. Edith L. Bornn, Resident Agent No. 8 Norre Gade St. Thomas, Virgin Islands (For Defendant) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (October wd , 1982) FEUERZEIG, J. Plaintiff was ordered on July 13, 1982 "to show cause by what authority this court can find that service on Urline Lettsome was proper service on the defendant." Plaintiff filed nothing in response. As a result, on September 10, 1982 plaintiff was ordered to comply with the order or face dismissal without prejudice. Plaintiff responded on September 24, 1982 indicating Ms. Lettsome is the receptionist for the resident agent of defendant Jackson Enterprises, Inc. With no further adieu, it is concluded: “Accordingly, proper service was made . " Rule 4(d)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that personal service may be made on a foreign or domestic corvo~ ration by delivering process to any agent authorized by appoint- ment or by law to receive service of process. Despite plaintiff's assurances to the contrary, it is by no means certain here that service was, in fact, proper. In Ramamurti_v. Rolls Royce, Ltd., 457 F.Supp. 407 (D.D.c. 1978), aff'd 612 F.2d 587 (D.C. Cir. 1980), the clerk of defendant's Washington D.C. agent was served with process. The court noted that although the defendant objected to service on its agent being effective against it, it did not question whether the service of the agent's clerk was effective against the agent. The court further pointed out that there was no question as to either the defendant's or the agent's timely receipt of actual notice. Thus the court denied the defendant's motion to quash service and to dismiss the complaint for lack of versonal juris- diction. See also Koninklijke Luchtvaart Naatschappij N.V. v. Curtis~-Wright Corp., 17 F.R.D. 49 (D. N.¥. 1955); United States v. Mollenhauer Labs, Inc., 267 F.2d 260 (7th Cir. 1959). Unlike Ramamurti, defendant in this action may not have notice of the complaint. Under these circumstances, the court is reluctant to enter a judgment of default in plaintiff's favor without it either serving the resident agent herself or providing this court with more convincing authority than has been submitted. Accordingly, it is 3. ORDERED that plaintiff within fifteen days either submit authority by which the court can find that service on the resident agent's receptionist is sufficient service on the resident agent herself or face dismissal of this action without prejudice. HENRY L. FEUERZ Juage of t itorial Court